A comprehensive framework for evaluating prompts across cognitive, epistemic, and contextual dimensions.
The Enhanced Prompt Evaluation Template provides a structured approach to evaluating prompts across multiple dimensions, incorporating advanced cognitive architecture principles, epistemic integrity mechanisms, and context engineering approaches. This template enables comprehensive assessment of prompt quality, effectiveness, and alignment with intended goals.
Mental model and cognitive aspects
Evaluation metrics focused on mental model preservation, cognitive transparency, and reconstructability.
Knowledge integrity and verification
Metrics for assessing semantic integrity, drift resistance, and knowledge boundary enforcement.
Context definition and execution
Evaluation of context definition clarity, boundary enforcement, and execution verification.
Task performance and effectiveness
Assessment of goal alignment, task completion, output quality, and efficiency.
Value alignment and pluralism
Evaluation of ethical considerations, value alignment, and pluriversal awareness.
Self-improvement and adaptation
Assessment of self-improvement mechanisms, adaptability, and recursive enhancement.
Assessment of how well the prompt preserves the underlying mental models:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example MMPI: 0.85
Assessment of how easily original intent and reasoning can be reconstructed:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example RR: 0.80
Assessment of how explicitly reasoning and assumptions are presented:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example CTI: 0.90
Assessment of how well the prompt maintains consistent meaning:
Measure of meaning shift between iterations (0-1 scale, lower is better)
Example SDC: 0.04
Assessment of control over meaning and knowledge boundaries:
Assessment of balance between stability and evolution
Sovereignty: 0.75
Evolution: 0.25
Assessment of knowledge quality and verification:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example EQI: 0.88
Assessment of how clearly context is defined:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example CDQ: 0.95
Assessment of how well context is linked to execution:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example PIQ: 0.90
Assessment of verification mechanisms:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example VQI: 0.85
Assessment of alignment with intended goals:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example GAS: 0.95
Assessment of task completion effectiveness:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example TCQ: 0.92
Assessment of resource usage and performance:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example EI: 0.88
Assessment of alignment with ethical values:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example VAI: 0.90
Assessment of awareness and respect for multiple worldviews:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example PAS: 0.85
Assessment of mechanisms to prevent harm:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example HPI: 0.95
Assessment of mechanisms for self-improvement:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example SII: 0.88
Assessment of integration with other framework components:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example IQI: 0.90
Assessment of potential for emergent capabilities:
Composite score calculated from individual criteria (0-1 scale)
Example EIP: 0.85
Define evaluation context and criteria
Evaluate across all dimensions
Calculate composite scores
Identify strengths and weaknesses
Develop enhancement plan
Calculated as weighted average of dimension scores, with weights customized for specific domains and use cases.
Overall Evaluation Score: 0.88
The Enhanced Prompt Evaluation Template is designed to integrate seamlessly with other components of the Enhanced Prompt Engineering Framework:
Provides evaluation metrics for assessing minimal prompts while maintaining cognitive integrity and context anchoring.
Learn MoreIncorporates evaluation criteria for assessing grammatical structures that enhance cognitive transparency and semantic integrity.
Learn MoreProvides standardized evaluation metrics that enable cross-component communication and validation.
Learn More"Extract financial metrics from the quarterly report"
DocumentAnalysis[ Context: 'Q2_2025_Financial_Report', Goal: 'ExtractKeyMetrics_Comprehensive', Constraint: 'FactualAccuracy_SDCLessThan0.05' ]